| Castillo v New York City Tr. Auth. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00380 [69 AD3d 487] |
| January 19, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Jose Castillo, Respondent, v New York City TransitAuthority et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] The Feinsilver Law Group, P.C., Millburn, New Jersey (David Feinsilver of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered November 12, 2008,which, insofar as appealed from, as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The evidence submitted by defendants was insufficient to establish as a matter of law thatplaintiff solely caused his accident in this slip-and-fall matter or that defendants did not createthe alleged water-and-debris hazard and lacked actual or constructive notice of it. Not only diddefendants fail to offer specific evidence as to their activities on the day of the accident, but thedefendant church acknowledged that it maintained and cleaned the premises daily, with theexception of Sundays, the day the accident occurred (Lebron v Napa Realty Corp., 65 AD3d 436 [2009]; Moser v BP/CG Ctr. I, LLC, 56 AD3d323 [2008]; Baptiste v 1626 MeatCorp., 45 AD3d 259 [2007]). The motion court also properly found that plaintiff'ssubmissions were sufficient to create triable issues of fact and that issues of credibility were tobe resolved at trial, and not by summary judgment (S.J. Capelin Assoc. v Globe Mfg.Corp., 34 NY2d 338, 341 [1974]).
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Acosta, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.